A very kind reader has sent me a bunch of statistics on public transport in Auckland, as well as other cities throughout New Zealand and Australia. They make for interesting, if rather sobering, reading. For a start, let’s have a look at per-capita annual public transport boardings between 1999 and 2009 across a bunch of Australian and New Zealand cities:
The results here look pretty disappointing for Auckland – which only increases from 39 trips per year per person to 41 trips per year per person. So while we’ve had pretty tremendous growth in parts of the public transport system over the last decade (such as the train system), in other areas we have only really kept pace with population growth. Perhaps the most impressive growth is that of Melbourne’s over the past few years – I wonder what their secret is?
If we compare Auckland with other cities around New Zealand it’s clear that we’re well behind Wellington and even marginally behind Christchurch for per-capita boardings. Of course Auckland has grown much more rapidly than these other two cities over the past two decades, but it is interesting to see that boardings have only really kept up with population growth, whereas in some other cities (such as Hamilton) we have seen them increase dramatically:
These statistics don’t break down what has happened to the different types of services, and as is clear from the ARTA monthly business reports, it is the higher quality services (generally the trains and the Northern Busway services) that have experienced the most growth. This is not really that surprising, as public transport patronage isn’t going to “magically increase”. However, what the overall statistics clearly show is that while things definitely have got better over the past decade – and we have ‘turned the corner’ – we can’t continue to do things the same way. This is most clear when you start to look at some of the financial information, showing the money that has been spent on public transport over the past decade – and what the results of that investment has been.
The information below details that:
If ever there was proof that the “current setup” doesn’t work, then this data is that proof. Over the past decade the amount of public subsidies spent on public transport has increased by 250%, but the patronage has only increase by 44%. That is a pretty poor result all in all.
What this shows is that public transport in Auckland won’t be fully fixed simply by spending more money on it – particularly in terms of operating costs. The system needs to be smarter, it needs integrated ticketing to ensure that more complicated trips can be provided for, we need to do away with costly service duplication and allow ARTA (and its successor) to comprehensively plan the network that Auckland needs, and we need to invest in areas that are growing in patronage because they are better than driving – most particularly the rapid transit network.
All this said, I certainly don’t think that we can write off the last decade as a failure. We have certainly ‘turned the ship around’, in terms of addressing falling public transport patronage – both at an absolute level and at a per-capita level. We have also made a good start in improving the network, through investments in the rail network and building the Northern Busway. However, it really feels like so much is left to be done – both big things like the CBD Rail Tunnel, and small things like simplifying our bus system to make it more efficient and effective. Yet, while things are definitely better than a decade ago – this data clearly shows that there’s a long way to go.
Processing...
Very interesting and useful post Joshua.
Can I ask where the spreadsheet is sourced from, and if there are similar figures available for Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch? I would like to pass this info onto people who have older eyes and they will probably not be able to read the small text.
Hamilton has introduced a good quality bus service where they have an orbiter bus service which operates as ‘urban transit’ linking up with buses heading into the city. They also offer some kind of free transfer arrangement between buses. Maybe Auckland could learn some lessons from Hamilton on how to make public transport work better.
I’m surprised that Palmerston North has hit the big time! However, they do offer free buses to Massey University for the students. But one would have to wonder what happened to Tauranga? From the outside appearance they are car crazy, and it must be true!
I agree with your more recent posts that network planning (and integrated ticketing) will make better use of public transport services city wide. But many Aucklanders need to change their attitudes towards catching a bus or train before things will change (I hope new trains will help with this).
I would be interesting splitting out the buses and trains in Auckland. I would imagine that the rail service attracts a much higher subsidy per passenger, which is of course not surprising as the rail network is in an early stage of development. I would also guess that the average rail journey is somewhat longer than the average bus journey hence a higher subsidy per person.
That would show how much of the problem is really with the private bus operators costing more despite flat passenger numbers. I understand there has been a problem with private operators withdrawing from commercial services, forcing the council to continue these with a subsidy paid, usually to the same private operator.
I think Melbourne’s ability to increase is based around the flexibility 16 electrified railways gives, there must be a lot of latent capacity there mainly only requiring new rolling stock…
I must say this is pretty disapointing… Buses, trains and ferries look a lot fuller visually to me over the last 5 years, could all this increase come from intensification of land use..?
Joe, I will email you the full spreadsheet tonight if you like. It has quite a lot of information on different cities in NZ.
I imagine that the rail subsidy per passenger has decreased over the past decade, as the trains are much more full than they used to be. Which means that most of the increased money spent on subsidies has gone into the pockets of Stagecoach and now Infratil. That is why the PTMA and the shift to gross contracting is necessary – so that we can get more results out of the money spent.
It also shows that integrated ticketing is necessary, so we can remove much of the duplication of services that happens now, and develop a more efficient system.
I would also be very interested in seeing the full spreadsheet – could you send a copy through?
Kind regards
Brett, all they seem to be doing down there these days is building more motorways.
Melbourne does have a lot of potential with it’s 15 regular EMU commuter lines and the world’s most extensive tram network, however the recent growth explosion is causing massive congestion and other problems. Basically while patronage has skyrocketed not much else has changed. There wa has been a trickle of new trains since the last big order of trams and trains around 2000, however these were simply intended to replace failing legacy stock (some of which has been kept in service to try and cope with the numbers). The sum result is that basically all the growth has been met by overcrowding of existing services and a little bit of timetable massaging.
There are 70 new trains on order for the next half decade, which sounds impressive but will only allow an average of one or two new services an hour per line. In addition to a big pile of level crossings and a few long planned flying junctions, there are major management and operational issues that need to be overcome. For example the state claims the city loop system is at capacity and can only be relived by building a $5 billion metro tunnel over ten or so years (what are we supposed to do in the meantime exactly?). Yet many lines only run at ten minute headways during peak hours, trains sit blocking platforms at flinders street for ten or fifteen minutes while crews change over, and they insist on sending almost every train through the four track city loop tunnel, despite the fact that there are nine tracks coming into the city and nine other tracks heading out again! Indeed the original designers of the City loop system designed it for double the current patronage on the infrastructure we have in place today.
And thats even before we get onto the hundreds of kilometres of tram newtork that is well under capacity, not to mention the barely existing bus network.
There is a heap of potential for a city wide transit system, but sadly here the powers that be are also mostly concerned with spending most of the funds on freeway projects while making some token efforts to improve the lot of peak hour commuters heading to the CBD.
They attribute the growth to the impact of petrol prices, but I think the central area parking levy combined with the re-growth in central area employment and ongoing strong population growth is probably more the cause. To me this suggests that the patronage growth is likely to continue for some time yet, particularly as Melbourne’s population is predicted to double to 7 million by 2040. This is the same as adding the population of Hamilton to Melbourne every year for the next 30 years, or about a thousand new homes every single week at current occupancy rates!
(Man I better finish my Masters soon, there’s a lot of urban planning to be done!)
How does the central area parking levy work Nick?
“A key initiative is a Congestion Levy designed to impact positively on the CBD environment and encourage use of public transport. The Levy is an annual charge and applies to “off street” parking spaces used for parking cars or larger motor vehicles within the Levy area.”
So it is a levy on all ‘long stay’ off street car parks of $800 per space per year. Apartment buildings and other residential parks are not included, nor are short stay parks exclusively for a business’ clients or visitors or a variety of other bits and pieces like disabled parking, car dealerships or for staff parking in workplaces that operate 24 hours a day (i.e. the hospitals).
So basically it is a tax on 9-5 commuter parking. I’m not sure but I think that there have not been any new parking buildings in the CBD since it was introduced, despite strong employment growth. I would say it has not reduced car traffic but perhaps stopped its growth quite considerable.
It was introduced at the start of 2007 (with a 50% discount in the introductory year), and is paid pro-rata on any parks that were not accessible for the full year. It covers the wider central business district, not just the traditional Hoddle Grid.
It is a City of (inner) Melbourne initiative, but the funds are collected by the state and they handed back to the city. They proceeds are apparently earmarked for non-car transport infrastructure and travel demand management, which has resulted in some nice bike lane improvements in the city (I’m not sure quite what else they can do apart from bike lanes and footpaths, trams trains and buses are the state’s responsibility).
Sydney has something similar, but they have just increased their level from $950 to $2000 a year!
That parking levy sounds like a great idea, I’ve been having thoughts about something similar for Auckland. However I think the PT services and network need to be improved first, before introducing more user pays for cars.
One thing I wonder is how they manage to do these things politically, you can imagine the outcry if it was ever seriously proposed for Auckland.
Something similar was discussed as part of the investigation into road pricing/cogestion cordons done not to long ago by the NZTA, and I think it sounds like a good idea. It would certainly be cheap and easy to implement, and assuming that carpark owners passed those fees on to customers it would have an immediate ‘stick’ impact as well as slowing demand for new car parks to be built.
How they manage politically is perhaps due to the fact that the rest of the world is not viciously and rabidly pro-car-at-all-costs as Auckland. The prevailing attitude seems to be that you can (maybe) do a little to improve public transport as long as you don’t spend much and you keep building car infrastructure at the same time. You sure as hell can’t do anything to make driving less attractive (or in other terms, dismantle the hidden subsidies of private car travel).
The Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study conducted by MoT and Treasury investigated an urban parking levy, for all Auckland CBDs. There were a number of conclusions such as:
– A significant number of motorists wouldn’t face the charge, but their employers would. Meaning that it would facilitate no behaviour change among those who simply get it included in their salary package.
– It was a relatively poor performing option compared to road pricing, with only a 3% reduction in vehicle trips and a minor impact on congestion overall as it focuses on trips terminating in CBDs only (6% of all trips, with only a third of those influenced by the charge);
– There are serious concerns around ease of implementation and enforcement issues, as it involve information about and access to private property;
– It is relatively cheap compared to road pricing and achieves a reasonable mode shift among those facing the charge (only because those facing it are in CBDs which tend to have good PT options), but the proportion facing the charge is much smaller than road pricing options examined.
In short, while it wouldn’t cost much to implement, it would be complicated and make take some time to address issues around parking on private property, and the net impact is small. The next phase of the ARPES work is not proceeding with this option as a result.
I agree with Liberty on this issue of parking. I cannot see it atually changing the behaviour of people driving on the road (as it targets parked vechiles). As land intensifies, parking areas will be converted into offices etc etc and prices will naturally rise for existing areas.
I think that a congestion charge would help change behaviours as those who are driving. As land is worth much more in the CBD area, people should have to pay a premium to drive on the road. Therefore a charge ($10 a day) should be passed onto the driver.
If the goal it to target peak hour commuters driving to one of the specified business districts I think it could be quite effective. There is the issue of companies wearing the increased cost for ‘company car’ parks and not passing them on to the driver. But it would in the long term create some shift in the way companies treat parking, either by reducing the level of parking benefits in salary structures or by limiting the amount of parking in new and refurbished buildings. For the people that park in a private parking building the pricing effect would be immediate, and smaller companies might be encouraged to convert some of their parking to other more productive uses.
If the goal is to limit driving at all hours city wide then it won’t make a dent, but is that really the best goal or is it better to target measures to where the greatest problem is?
Hi Ive just come across this link and am very interested in obtaining the full spreadsheet of piblic transport figures for New Zealand. In particular Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton
If you cannot send the information I would greatly appreciate some advice on where to get it.